Electoral systems define how citizens’ voices shape governance. While Proportional Representation (PR) has long been praised for its fairness in converting votes into seats, it falls short in linking voters directly with accountable legislators. To overcome these limitations, Dr. Khairuzzaman Mamun introduces Multiple Representation (MR), a system that not only preserves proportionality but elevates individual accountability and decision-making precision. In this article, I demonstrate why MR outperforms PR by examining each model’s mechanics, illustrating with examples, and contrasting their merits and demerits.
Proportional Representation (PR)
Proportional Representation allocates seats to political parties in close alignment with their share of the popular vote. Under a typical closed-list PR:
- Voters cast ballots for parties rather than individual candidates.
- The total vote percentage for each party determines its number of legislative seats.
- Party leadership ranks candidates on a list; those at the top fill the allocated seats.
Example: In a 100-seat body, Party A garners 40% of votes and receives 40 seats, Party B 35% for 35 seats, and Party C 25% for 25 seats.
Merits of PR:
- Translates votes into seats with high accuracy, minimizing wasted ballots.
- Enables smaller parties to gain representation, enriching pluralism.
- Encourages coalition governments, fostering compromise over majoritarian dominance.
Demerits of PR:
- Weak voter-MP linkage: Voters choose parties rather than individuals, diminishing personal accountability.
- Limited path for independents: Non-party candidates often struggle or are barred from standing, stifling political entrepreneurship.
- Party leadership dominance: List ordering gives party elites excessive control over who enters parliament.
- Opaque candidacy: Voters may not know which individuals will occupy the seats their party wins.
- Fragmented legislatures: A proliferation of small parties can complicate coalition formation and prolong government-making.
- Policy gridlock: Multi-party coalitions sometimes chair disparate platforms, slowing legislative action.
- Internal party bargaining: Behind-the-scenes negotiations on list placement can overshadow substantive policy debate.
- Accountability diffusion: When responsibility is shared among coalition partners, pinpointing fault becomes difficult.
Multiple Representation (MR):
Multiple Representation, proposed by Dr. Khairuzzaman Mamun, restores voter-representative intimacy without sacrificing proportional fairness. MR allows multiple individual candidates in a single district to win seats based on a vote threshold—illustratively set at 25%, though adjustable to local needs—and assigns each elected MP a vote-weight proportional to their vote share.
Under MR:
- Voters select named candidates rather than parties.
- Any candidate exceeding the threshold secures a seat.
- Each MP’s parliamentary vote is weighted by the fraction of votes they received, ensuring district representation sums to 100%.
Example: In a district with 100,000 valid votes and a 25% threshold:
- Candidate A wins 45,000 votes → elected with weight 0.45
- Candidate B wins 30,000 votes → elected with weight 0.30
The district’s full 1.00 vote-weight can be balanced through a residual mechanism, guaranteeing complete representation.
Decision-Making Power under MR:
Under the Multiple Representation (MR) framework, each Member of Parliament’s decision-making authority corresponds directly to the share of votes they receive, with all winning candidates’ raw vote-shares normalized so their combined weight equals 100%. This approach ensures that a constituency’s full voting power is always represented, split among its elected MPs in proportion to the support each one garners.
Consider Constituency X, where Candidate A wins 45,000 votes and Candidate B wins 30,000 votes. Their raw shares—0.45 and 0.30—sum to 0.75. Normalizing these figures converts them into a full one-vote weight: Candidate A casts 0.45 ÷ 0.75 = 0.60 (60%) of the vote, and Candidate B casts 0.30 ÷ 0.75 = 0.40 (40%).
By tying each MP’s parliamentary vote to a normalized weight, MR delivers proportional policy influence, since legislators with broader public backing wield greater sway. It reshapes coalition dynamics: forming a majority depends on assembling sufficient vote-weight rather than merely counting seats. Smaller but successful candidates retain meaningful influence, safeguarding minority interests and encouraging MPs to nurture or expand their personal support to maintain their parliamentary clout.
Because every constituency always wields exactly one full vote—divided among its MPs—this system combines precision with clarity. Parliamentary sessions simply require reliable calculators or software modules to tally weighted votes in real time but avoid any fractional shortfalls or overhangs. Legislators and voters alike gain confidence that every decision reflects the true balance of electoral preferences.
In this way, Multiple Representation harmonizes individual accountability with flawless proportionality: every MP’s power transparently mirrors voter endorsement, reinforcing democratic legitimacy and ensuring that each constituency’s voice counts in full.
This system yields several effects:
- Proportional policy influence: MPs who attract more broad support carry greater sway in decisions.
- Coalition dynamics: Building a governing majority requires assembling sufficient vote-weight rather than a simple headcount of MPs.
- Minority protection: Even smaller representatives who clear the threshold contribute meaningful weight, ensuring their constituents’ voices matter.
- Accountability incentive: MPs cannot rely on rigid party support; they must retain or grow their vote-weight to maintain influence.
- Complexity in vote tallying: Parliamentary sessions need weighted-vote calculators or specialized software to track real-time coalition arithmetic.
By tying decision-making power directly to electoral performance, MR seeks to harmonize individual accountability with proportional outcomes.
Why MR Surpasses PR:
- Stronger Voter-MP Connection
By naming individuals on ballots, MR reestablishes direct accountability—MPs know their legislative clout hinges on personal vote totals, not opaque party lists. - Proportional Decision-Making Power
Unlike PR’s one-MP-one-vote, MR ties each MP’s sway in parliament to actual electoral support. Legislative majorities form based on aggregate vote-weights, making policy outcomes more precisely reflective of voters’ will. - Expanded Space for Independents
Mr. Mamun’s design empowers local leaders and non-party candidates to compete on merit. If they clear the threshold, their constituents gain representation without party gatekeepers. - Balanced Coalition Dynamics
Building or sustaining a government under MR demands coalitions with sufficient vote-weight, incentivizing broader consensus and discouraging backroom horse-trading. - Incentive for Continuous Engagement
MPs cannot rely on list placements; they must maintain or grow their personal vote share to preserve or boost their weight, driving ongoing constituency service.
Merits of MR:
- Direct and transparent accountability links MPs to voter support.
- Proportional allocation of decision-making power enhances democratic legitimacy.
- Opens electoral contests to a wider pool of talent beyond party machinery.
- Stimulates voter engagement by spotlighting individual candidates’ records and platforms.
- Flexible threshold settings allow fine-tuning for local political fragmentation or stability.
- Reduces influence of centralized party elites in selecting legislators.
Demerits of MR:
- Requires sophisticated counting systems to calculate and verify vote-weights accurately.
- Imposes higher administrative and technological costs than straightforward seat-counting.
- Necessitates comprehensive legal reform and training for election officials.
- Coalition-building can become conceptually complex, demanding software support during parliamentary votes.
- Threshold debates may ignite political contention over optimal levels for inclusion versus governability.
Conclusion:
While Proportional Representation has advanced fairness at the party level, its inherent detachment between voters and individual MPs undermines accountability and stifles political entrepreneurship. Dr. Khairuzzaman Mamun’s Multiple Representation model transcends these weaknesses by integrating proportional fairness with personal vote-weight, ensuring that legislative power mirrors the exact will of the electorate. By revitalizing voter-representative bonds, aligning decision-making power with genuine support, and enabling talented independents to thrive, MR presents a truly superior alternative. As democracies seek reforms that deepen engagement and legitimacy, Multiple Representation stands out as the next evolution of electoral design.
Khairuzzaman Mamun 
Leave a comment